The following are the manually-calculated results of a study using the 24 manually-dealt shoes posted on vidpoker.com/bj_results.htm. I compared the financial outcomes of three "yteams" of five players each who used different betting systems. The teams either flat-betted $10, flat betted $15, or used my $10 to $25 positive progression. Each team had identical "bets won or lost" records, and the difference in financial outcomes is a direct result of the betting system employed.Net results for all players are as follows:Total bet won or lost: 1,942 (all pushed excluded)Total bets won: 982 (50.5%)Total bets lost: 960 (49.5%)Total number of player blackjacks: 93Net results for each team: $10 Flat bettors: 22 bets plus BJ payoffs (3/2): +$685.00 $15 Flat bettors: " "" " " " " : +$1,027.50 $10 to $25 Progressive Bettors: " " " : +$1,087.50

For all who are interested in progressions, below are the results of a comparison of methods using the hands that Sage flagged to the forums attention last week (for those that didnt see that post, these hands are 24 shoes of six deck, dealt to 5 players).

Parameters of the Test:1. I made Walter Thomasons progression my benchmark, and played his method exactly as he recommends in his book and on this forum. (i.e. Quit the shoe after four losses in a row, and restart the progression at the start of each shoe).2. I used four methods, Walters Progression, Dahls Progression, Oscars Grind, and Flat Betting3. All four methods were played using the quit four so that exactly the same hands were played for each method, and the tests were indeed apples to apples.4. The progressions were not restarted at the start of each shoe for Dahl and Oscars Grind, as this is not their recommended strategy. (i.e. Only Walter recommends this for his).5. All methods were played with a $10 unit, except $15 was used for the flat better. $15 most closely approximates the average bet of the other methods.6. I used a session buy-in of $500 for all methods .Note this is slightly unfair to Oscars Grind, but to play the Grind practically you must use a session stop loss.

Buffarino: I didn't use quit points, but I will now (just to verify Grif's work).

Colin: I haven't done anything with Power BJ as yet.

Grif: Can you run results without Quit Points, just to verify my figures? Personal note: Yikes! I can't believe I came in last!! :cry: Also, my apologies for the typos in my initial post... I typed the same information twice, and my stinkin' computer dropped me before posting, so I typed the last post very fast and didn't proofread it.

Walt - I sure wouldn't give that a second thought. That sample was pathetically small. Run another set the same size and there would be a good chance the results could reverse, especially between you, Dahl, and flat.

Do you really want me to run all those again without quit points?? Neither us play any six deck game that way.

D - Good One :wink: .....Let's just say that ol' Player 3 had a "bad trip" (no that kind!!) and couldn't 'win a lick' for the two days he played no matter what he/she tried. Happens to eveyone.

I'll slip in a blip about tournaments here since I noticed you posted on that thread...... If you play tournaments instead of the 'real' game of blackjack, your winning percentage will probably be about the same as Player 3.

Grif: Something's wrong! My figures, after quit points, are totally different than yours. For the progressive bettors, I show Player 5 at +2.50, Player 4 at +420.00, Player 3 at -77.50, Player 2 at +307.50, and Player 1 at +357.50, for a net result of +$1,015.00. I show 30 Quit Points for the 120 shoes.Let's figure some way to exchange raw data to find out why our results are so different.Cheers!

Grif: Yes, I restarted my progression at the start of each new shoe. I think hand 7 of shoe 7 was a typo, for two reasons: It's real rare to lose 7 bets on one hand, plus every other player lost one bet on this hand, which looks like a dealer Blackjack to me. Whatever the case, I counted the hand as one loss, rather than 7 losses.

Walt - This is 'testing'.....I don't think we should arbitrarily be assuming anything. Yes, -7 is rare but we have both had it happen to us; and besides it really doesn't matter......I used 7 losses for all four methods.What is your total for Player 5 with just your method if you take -$95 off your total??

Your second post - Player 5 with your progression wins $95, not $115 according to my numbers.....so there is another $20.

Grif: You are correct... $95 is the correct total, and my results would be $0 if I took $95 off my total. Do you show a blank space for the fourth hand for Player 5? I have about 20 "blanks" throughout the shoes, as if the player skipped playing a hand. The 6th hand for Player 2 is also blank.I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that the L7 was a typo, but this would require three splits and three double-downs on 4 hands -- all losers -- in order for the player to lose 7 bets, plus every other player lost. Too bad we can't check with the source to see if this was a typo.

Grif: You are correct... $95 is the correct total, and my results would be $0 if I took $95 off my total.

Walt - Check again.....Your post above states Player 5 at +$2.50. Take $95.00 off and you are at -$92.50.....Take another $20 off for the error on shoe seven and you are -$112.50.....My results were -$107.50. One half unit difference, close enough for this test.

I am going to bust some of both our posts above that are just this number discussion.

Grif: Good idea! I never should have posted results without first double-checking my numbers. Pleas understand that I never meant to question your results; I was questioning MY results, and wanted to use your numbers to check for shoe-by-shoe differences.Anyway, it's back to the drawing board... I'm going to recalculate all of my data, and will e-mail you my results before reposting on this subject.BTW, Player 5 (progressive) was $+5 when counting hand 7 as a 7 bet loss.